The "Revolving Door" between Regulatory Agencies and Industry: A Problem That Requires Reconceptualizing Objectivity

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 575-599

  Meghani, Zahra ^a   Kuzma, Jennifer ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Conflict of interest; Ethics; Genetically modified (GM) organisms; Objectivity; Policy; Regulatory agencies; Revolving door; Risk assessment

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; REGULATORY APPROACH; RISK ASSESSMENT; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 80054026295     PISSN: 11877863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10806-010-9287-x     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Abraham, J., & Davis, C. (2007). Deficits, expectations and paradigms in British and American drug safety assessments prising open the black box of regulatory science. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 32(4), 399-431.
2. Arnesen, T., & Nord, E. (1999). The value of DALY life: Problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. British Medical Journal, 319, 1423-1425.
3. Beauchamp, T. L., & Walters, L. (1999). Ethical theory and bioethics. In T. Beauchamp & L. Walters (Eds.), Contemporary issues in bioethics (5th ed., pp. 1-32). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
4. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2005). Public values and public failure in US science policy. Science and Public Policy, 32(2), 119-136.
5. Brom, F., de Baker, E., DeBlonde, M., & de Graaff, R. (2006). Corporate moral responsibility. The Hague: Manual, LEI.
6. Calmes, J. (2008). Financial crisis may give rise to new era of regulation. International Herald Tribune: The Global Edition of the New York Times. October 13.
7. Ceccoli, S. J. (2004). Pill politics: Drugs and the FDA. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
8. Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1983). On democracy: Toward a transformation of American society. New York: Penguin.
9. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
10. Eggan, D., & Kindy, K. (2010). Three of every four oil and gas lobbyists worked for federal government. The Washington Post. Available at http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072106468. html?hpid=topnews. Accessed 22 July 2010.
11. Ehrhardt, A., & Meyer-Bahlburg, H. (1981). Effects of prenatal sex hormones on gender-related behavior. Science, 211, 1312-1318.
12. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). (1983). Guidelines for performing regulatory impact analysis (EPA-230-01-84-003). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
13. EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. (1998). Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Federal Register, 63(93), 26846-26924.
14. Ferrara, J. (1998). Revolving doors: Monsanto and the regulators. The Ecologist, 28(5), 280-287.
15. Fischer, F. (2004). Professional expertise in a deliberative democracy: Facilitating participatory inquiry. The Good Society, 13(1), 21-27.
16. Fung, A. (2007). Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(3), 443-458.
17. Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Priest, S., Eyck, T. T., Allum, N., & Torgersen, H. (2001). Troubled waters: The transatlantic divide on biotechnology policy. In G. Gaskell & M. Bauer (Eds.), Biotechnology 1996-1999: The Years of Controversy (pp. 96-115). London: Science Museum Press.
18. Grundmann, R., & Stehr, N. (2003). Social control and knowledge in democratic societies. Science and Public Policy, 30, 183-1886.
19. Harding, S. (1998). Is science multicultural? postcolonialism, feminism, and epistemologies. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indian UP.
20. Harding, S. (2004). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is "Strong Objectivity?". In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 127-140). London: Routledge.
21. Hartsock, N. (1998). The feminist standpoint: Developing the grounds for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding (Ed.), The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 35-53). London: Routledge.
22. Jasanoff, S., & Wynne, B. (1998). Science and decisionmaking. In S. Rayner & E. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (pp. 1-87). Columbus: Battelle.
23. Karwaki, T. E. (1996) The FDA and the biotechnology industry: A symbiotic relationship? 71 Washington Law Review, 821.
24. Kerwin, C. M. (2003). Rulemaking: How government agencies write law and make policy (3rd edn., Chap. 2, pp. 39-85). CQ Press, "The Process of rulemaking".
25. Kunreuther, H., & Slovic, P. (1996) Science, values, and risk. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 545, Challenges in Risk Assessment and Risk Management, 116-125.
26. Kuzma, J., & Besley, J. (2008). Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio- to nanotechnology. Nanoethics, 2(2), 149-162.
27. Kuzma, J., Larson, J., & Najmaie, P. (2009). Evaluating oversight systems for emerging technologies: A case study of genetically engineered organisms. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics, 37(4), 546-586.
28. Kuzma, J., & Meghani, Z. (2009). A possible change in the U. S. risk -based decision making for emerging technological products: Compromised or enhanced objectivity? EMBO Report, 10, 1-6.
29. Lang, J. T., & Hallman, W. K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241-1251.
30. Layton, L. (2010). FDA considers approving genetically modified salmon for human consumption. The Washington Post. Available at http://www. washingtonpost. com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/06/AR2010090602424_pf. html. Accessed 7 September 2010.
31. Levidow, L., Murphy, J., & Carr, S. (2007). Recasting "substantial equivalence": Transatlantic governance of gm food. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32(1), 26-64.
32. Lewenstein, B. (2005). What counts as a 'social and ethical issue' in nanotechnology? HYLE International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, 11(1), 5-18.
33. Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton UP.
34. Longino, H. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton UP.
35. Mattera, P. (2004). USDA Inc.: How Agribusiness has hijacked regulatory policy at the US Department of Agriculture. Agribusiness Accountability Initiative and Corporate Research Project, Good Jobs First.
36. Meghani, Z. (2008). Values, technologies, and epistemology. Journal Agriculture and Human Values, 25, 25-34.
37. Meghani, Z. (2009). The FDA, normativity of risk assessment, GMOs, and American democracy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 22, 125-139.
38. Meghani, Z., & de Melo-Martín, I. (2009). The US food and drug administration's evaluation of the safety of animal clones: A failure to recognize the normativity of risk assessment projects. Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 29, 9-17.
39. Meijboom, F. L. B., Visak, T., & Brom, F. W. A. (2006). From trust to trustworthiness: Why information is not enough in the food sector. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19, 427-442.
40. Mepham, B. (1996). Ethical analysis of food biotechnologies: An evaluative framework. In B. Mepham (Ed.), Food ethics (pp. 101-119). London: Routledge.
41. Muir, W. M., & Howard, R. D. (1999). Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. PNAS, 96, 13853-13856.
42. Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
43. Nelson, L. H. (1993). Epistemological communities. In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist epistemologies (pp. 121-160). New York: Routledge.
44. Newell, P. (2003). Globalization and the governance of biotechnology. Global Environmental Politics, 3, 56-71.
45. Nielsen, K. (1985). Equality and liberty: A defense of radical egalitarianism. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld.
46. NRC (National Research Council). (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. NRC (National Research Council). (1996). Understanding risk. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48. NRC (National Research Council). (2000). Genetically modified pest-protected plants: Science and regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49. NRC (National Research Council). (2002). Environmental effects of transgenic plants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
50. NRC (National Research Council). (2008). Public participation in environmental assessment and decision making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
51. OMB (Office of Management and Budget). (2009). Federal regulatory review. Federal Register, 74(37), 8819.
52. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). (1986). Coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Federal Register, 51, 23302.
53. OSTP (Office of Science and Technology Policy). (2000). Food and agricultural biotechnology initiatives: Strengthening science-based regulation. Available at http://clinton4. nara. gov/WH/EOP/OSTP/html/0058. html. Accessed 20 July 2010.
54. PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). (2006a). Public sentiment about genetically modified food. Available at http://www. pewtrusts. org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Public_Opinion/Food_and_Biotechnology/2006summary. pdf. Accessed 20 July 2010.
55. PIFB (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). (2006b). Agicultural biotechnology: Information disclosure. Available at http://www. pewtrusts. org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Summaries_-_reports_and_pubs/PIFB_AgBiotech_Info_Disclosure_Workshop_Report. pdf. Accessed 20 July 2010.
56. Pollack, A. (2007). Without US rules, biotech food lacks investors. NY Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/washington/30animal.html?pagewanted=print. Accessed 25 January 2009.
57. Pollack, A. (2010). Genetically altered salmon get closer to the table. NY Times. Available at http://www. nytimes. com/2010/06/26/business/26salmon. html?hp. Accessed 25 June 2010.
58. Prakash, A., & Kollman, K. (2003). Biopolitics in the EU and the US: A race to the bottom or convergence to the top? International Studies Quarterly, 47, 617-641.
59. RDWG (Revolving Door Working Group) (2005). A matter of trust: How the revolving door undermines public confidence in government and what to do about it.
60. Reuters. (2001). Bush names monsanto executive linda fisher for senior EPA Job. Available at http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Monsanto-Fisher-EPA-Job.htm. Accessed 25 March 2009.
61. Rollin, B. (1995). The frankenstein syndrome: Ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. New York: Cambridge UP.
62. Schrader-Frechette, K. (1991). Risk and rationality: Philosophical foundations for populist reforms. Berkeley: University of California Press.
63. Siegrist, M., Keller, C., Kastenholz, H., Frey, S., & Wiek, A. (2007). Laypeople's and expert's perceptions of nanotechnology hazards. Risk Analysis, 27, 59-69.
64. Tait, J. (2009). Upstream engagement and the governance of science. EMBO Rep, 10, S18-S22.
65. Thompson, P. B. (2007). Food biotechnology in ethical perspective. Berlin: Springer.
66. United States General Accounting Office. (2004). Report to congressional requesters "federal advisory committees additional guidance could help agencies better ensure independence and balance" GAO-04-328. Available at http://www. gao. gov/new. items/d04328. pdf. Accessed 10 February 2009.
67. United States Regulatory Agencies Unified Biotechnology Website. (2009). Welcome. Available at http://usbiotechreg. nbii. gov/. Accessed 13 March 2009.
68. United States's Food, Drug Administration. (2008). FDA's Response to Public Comment on the Animal Cloning Risk Assessment, Risk Management Plan, and Guidance for Industry. Available at http://www. fda. gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AnimalCloning/ucm055491. htm. Accessed 12 July 2010.
69. United States's Food and Drug Administration. (2009) Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish. Available at http://www. fda. gov/AnimalVeterinary/ResourcesforYou/ucm047112. htm. Accessed 12 July 2010.
70. United States's Food and Drug Administration. (2008). Center for Veterinary Medicine, Information for Consumers: Questions and Answers about Transgenic Fish. Available at http://www. fda. gov/cvm/transgen. htm. Accessed 24 September 2008.
71. United States's Food and Drug Administration. (2008). FDA's Mission Statement. Available at from http://www. fda. gov/opacom/morechoices/mission. html. Accessed 22 December 2008.
72. White House (1993). Regulatory planning and review: Executive Order #12866. Available at http://govinfo. library. unt. edu/npr/library/direct/orders/2646. html. Accessed 20 July 2010.
73. White House (2007). Regulatory planning and review: Executive Order #12866. Federal Register 72 (14). Available at http://edocket. access. gpo. gov/2007/pdf/07-293. pdf. Accessed 20 July 2010.
74. Wiktorowicz, M. E. (2003). Emergent patterns in the regulation of pharmaceuticals: Institutions and interests in the US, Canada, Britain, and France. Journal of Health, Politics, Policy and Law, 28, 615-658, pp. 634-635.